Unfortunately a lot of "budget" items are being subsidized by your personal information, and the smaller market for privacy-forward goods and services makes economies of scale harder.
Unless governments start passing robust privacy laws, it will just continue to get more and more expensive to live privately with modern conveniences.
Things cost a lot to produce. It’s cheapened by underpaying laborers and underestimating the cost and impact of resource extraction and power consumption, and the current path of massively scaling up factories, overproducing, and driving the repair economy out of business by making “just buy a new one!” so affordable really looks like The Big Thing That Ends The Current Epoch that people will really struggle to comprehend when they learn about it in history class
I don't know what exactly you're referring to but I assume you mean the bill of material cost that sometimes goes around in headlines like "new phone only costs $150 to produce and is sold for $500" or something like that.
That's a flawed way of looking at it because it ignores things like:
Shipping cost (both the final product and individual components)
Development cost
The % the retail store takes
...
And of course profit which ideally is used to finance the development of the next device and ofc the greedy execs at the end who put the rest in their pockets (that's the only part which you can actually cut)
I'm not sure where you are, but I've worked in retail quite a lot of years. Where I am, now:
*R&D is paid for at some point
*Shipping is probably more expensive now, but is normally not that expensive
*Retail stores pay a flat rate per item, less in bulk
What is expensive:
*Venture capitalists
*BoD, large share holders
*Marketing (contained once brand recognition established)
*C-suite
*Real estate
R&D is a really big one though. It's a very high price for smaller volumes of phones but as soon as you get into the bigger quantities you can save on R&D (per model) and pocket the rest as profit.
To me it makes a lot of sense that privacy phones cost more, even if you could at most shave $100 off the price with selling data. It's economies of scale.
If you have economies of scale, and are competing on ground other than having the highest specs on paper, yes. If you're using the latest hardware and not moving Google volumes of devices though it's not as easy to keep prices down.
Biggest challenge GOS has is that most hardware vendors do not meet their fairly restrictive hardware security requirements, and those few that do don't typically allow bootloader unlocking. Pixel devices up until now have been unicorns in those regards.
But I don't get why they insist on those requirements. Yes, Random Phone + Graphene is less secure than Pixel + Graphene, but still far more secure and private than Random Phone + Stock ROM. Insisting on having all features just makes it far less accessible. There are many regions and classes that can't buy supported phones or a new phone at all. And I can't even properly confirm that everything I want to use works on graphene, because I'd need to fully commit towards buying a phone first. Which, even used, costs a lot.
It's a limited development pool, and they focus on delivering the most secure mobile OS possible, within the constraints that their funding and resources allow.
There are other ROMS, such as CalyxOS that have expanded to a few other devices, and LineageOS which has even broader support.
The goal of the project is not to slightly improve some aspects of insecure devices and supporting a broad set of devices would be directly counter to the values of the project.
The expectation is for people to buy a secure device meeting our requirements to run GrapheneOS. Broad device support would imply mainly supporting very badly secured devices unable to support our features. It would also take a substantial amount of resources away from our work on privacy and security, especially since a lot of it is closely tied to the hardware such as the USB-C port control and fixing or working around memory corruption bugs uncovered by our features.
They'd probably bitch and whine that every other phone doesn't have the absolutetely vital security feature called thingamabobSecurityModule™ without which apparently every other security feature and even their ROM itself doesn't work anymore; as they always do.
That’s fantastic. Does this help with the issue of Google releasing AOSP security updates at a slower cadence? Maybe working directly with an OEM resolves this?
I don't really know how this works, but if they have the cooperation of an OEM they should have the same access to AOSP security updates the OEM has, and access to hardware drivers from a company that's not trying to thwart them. I can see how this would be preferable to a basically antagonistic relationship with Google, who are making things difficult because they want all Pixel phones to run their stock OS. The thing I wonder is what motivates the OEM to continue a cooperative relationship with Graphene OS.
That’s exactly my understanding/ thought process as well. I was wondering the same in terms of why an OEM would cooperate, and my first thought was the increase in hardware sales. I’m not sure how big the market is, but I know the security crowd will flock to them if they’re partnering with GOS when that market share would have previously been Googles. I’m not sure how big that market is or if the 'juice would be worth the squeeze'.
I wonder whether there's some shared development agreement too. Perhaps the OEM stands to gain some software improvements for its own non-Graphene devices, or perhaps Graphene OS will become its mainstream offering. There has to be more to it than picking up the small percentage of customers who shop for privacy.
Because people want to use apps, which unfortunately don't exist on the Linux mobile projects. Banking apps are the biggest issue in fact. Obviously for a lot of other things, anyone can create alternatives.
And the whole issue of not being able to use most modern hardware with mainline Linux kernel because the drivers are closed source binary blobs. You have to use a device-specific kernels.
If somebody is buying a phone just because it's made by apple, they were never going to buy an android in the first place. Google would be entirely unaffected by this.
They make pretty good hardware and the fact that there aren't too many different configurations is a plus when it comes to software support. GOS iPhone would be awesome. Unfortunately never going to happen :(
Google has made it harder (it may kill AOSP in the long run but not yet) by delaying public release of source trees later than before. To counter that, they partnered with OEM, who in turn are partnered with Google, who are likely to get sources faster.
You can install apps freely with ADB so it will work that way or simply by removing google services, from what i understood(but i may be wrong) it's done by using google services so you need to uninstall them
My point was that Graphene uses non Play Store software, including an app store. But what I underestand from the comments is that the prohibition of software installation relies on Google Play Services, so Graphene is on the clear with that.
I don't understand your point. You can operate GOS completely without any Google sourced application or services. This how I run my tablet.
My phone has Google Play sandboxed. It has no additional permissions.
I was confused about the app installation process. I though Android as a whole was prohibiting any installation of non Play Store apps (other than using adb), and since Graphene uses an external app store, they needed to come with a workaround.
If any such restrictions were in AOSP it would be easy to remove. But potentially AuroraStore can be affected if Google starts asking for login. I don't use it, so I don't care.
I've loved my Motorola's. They're seemingly the last manufacturer that realises that for a bunch of people (myself included) a good priced mid-range device is more than sufficient.
just recently (2 months ago), I bought a Moto G84 5G, specifically because it had a snapdragon processor (and therefore good custom ROM support), is officially supported by LineageOS and it was cheap (160 EUR). I never needed a flagship phone, the cheap phones ~200 EUR always worked fine for me.
I was using Xiaomi/Redmi/Poco devices before that, but it seems that they have gone entirely Mediatek in that price segment, which is a shame.
I've never used one but a buddy has one (of some sort - no idea of the model) and he can barely use signal because the battery management keeps killing the app.
He's still got the stock ROM on it, but hasn't been able to make the messaging usable which is sad.
I'd grabbed a Samsung that my work had somehow slipped from knox enrollment so was able to root it but found its battery management was similarly abysmal and am starting to worry if maybe recent android is emulating those old performance / malware apps that aggressively kill off everything rather than letting the OS handle its own memory...
Now I know this is all reading like a fever dream but my handsets are on laughably old droid versions because I'm scarred by A/B partitions and oneplus so have let it all slip (that and Google keeps shitting on android!), so after all that waffle, I'm curious if you've got any similar anecdotes??
I don't have any anecdotes, really. On all my cheap devices, I never really had any issues with apps getting killed by battery management. I know that sometimes, you'll have to specifically switch off battery management for these specific apps, which can usually be done with a single action that the app generally let's you access directly on first setup.
But I've always used stock android or at least AOSP based Roms - I've never stuck with OEM Roms longer than the (usually) first 7 days they keep you from unlocking the bootloader. Once I can unlock the bootloader, the OEM Rom is gone.
I do know that some OEMs have their own battery management implemented on top of androids, which is often more aggressive, and a bit more convoluted to access.
Samsung is the largest Android manufacturer by a wide margin, and make a bunch of their money using spyware. Seems unlikely they would give GOS the time of day.
While it would be amazing if Samsung did open their phones up for custom ROMs again, I highly doubt they are doing. Its going to be a much smaller OEM.
While they're at it, can they talk their oem into adding a headphone jack? Literally the main reason I don't already do Pixel + Graphene. (And yes I know one of the supported Pixel phones does have one, but it also happens to be the exact model that I have personally seen do the black screen of death, so no thanks).
the audio quality is surprisingly excellent too. stock radios aren't bad, though the speakers have been hit and miss as I take all the junk to different cars. I think there are different types of cassette adapter too. My mom broke the one my parents had from before I existed by putting it in the wrong way and getting the cord stuck inside the slot and I replaced it, but the new one sounded way better in the same car.
I have a pixel 8. I've wanted to degoogle myself for years. How risky is Graphene to install? Do I need to root it? Can I brick it? Are there things it does that Google doesn't? Apps that don't work for it?
If you use the web installer provided on GrapheneOS website, you can't fuck it up. Just make sure you use a chromium browser when you do it, for some reason it crashes on Firefox (but it didn't brick my phone, so don't worry)
No root needed, just follow the instructions on the website (read before doing it). You probably could brick it like anything else, but I didn't and I barely knew what I was doing (and like I said, it crashed on me when trying it via FF).
Neat things they do that Google doesn't (afaik):
Auto turning Wifi and Bluetooth off if it's not connected (security and saves battery)
Being able to deny wifi permission to an app just through regular settings (Stock androids need root to do that). Like, I use Gboard, but it had no wifi, so it can't send telemetry to Google.
Notable things that don't work:
Some banking apps, really depends on luck. My debit card bank doesn't work, but my credit card bank does. Check this list to see if your banking app is tested. The reason is out of GOS hands, Google changed from SafetyNet to Play API or smth. If you can, just do web banking.
RCS is finicky enough on stock devices, but GOS ramps it up to a new level. There's workarounds, but don't be surprised if it breaks a few months later. Highly recommend getting your friends/family to communicate with you through a different E2EE app, like Signal, XMPP/Jabber, etc. or else you'll be stuck with insecure SMS
Some people have Android Auto issues? Idk, I've never used it
Follow the instructions as they're presented and you'll be fine
Installing it will make rooting easier, but afik root is not required (though you will be accessing the device at the recovery/bootloader level, something with far more control than root)
Yes, pay attention, follow the instructions and you'll be fine though
Respect your privacy, allow you to sandbox apps which want to spy
Everything should work because of the sandbox function, the same cannot be said for most other custom ROMs unless the Google apps have been installed.
There are definitely some things that do not work with GrapheneOS, though most haven't affected me as I don't use them (like banking apps).
A lot of banking apps don't work, especially from some European banks. I believe there is a fairly well updated list available online.
Android Auto can be made to work, but it's quirky and you have to fiddle with quite a few settings and possibly give up a fair amount of privacy to get some things going (like navigation). I'm still fighting with this.
Many apps will initially not work until you figure out what permissions they actually need and which they can bend on.
I still personally think it is worth it, but I can only speak for myself.
Banking apps are highly variable, many work, many don't. I have also heard that there are some required 2FA apps used some some European banks that currently don't work. I don't use any of these, so it hasn't been an issue, but I just wanted to make sure the OP knew to be on the lookout.
Samsung phones blow e-fuses when you unlock their bootloaders, so there's no going back. I think this would prevent a proper GrapheneOS installation.
Perhaps Samsung could start shipping phones with GrapheneOS natively installed, but since the phone's owner would not have control of the OS, that would arguably not be GrapheneOS as we know it today. Or maybe Samsung could change their chain of trust implementation to be more like Google's, allowing the bootloader to be re-locked.
Samsung would never. Their customized OS is this nested egg of vendor lock-in, with your data at the center. They would rather harvest data from 99.5% of their customer base than see the 0.5% of us that actually like their equipment buy it and do anything other than sink into their ecosystem.
I got a z flip 4 the other week for 90 quid off ebay. Was in perfect condition, and it felt nice in the hand. Liked the big screen, all that stuff. They I started running into the Samsung customised OS. It took less than a day to piss me off so much I gave it away.
Samsung make really nice phones, but then ruin them with their custom OS and bloat.
If you're doing a dirty flash, as long as you have the same kernel version between them it should be fine, not recommended though, lots could go wrong.
You shouldn't need to go back to stock, but make sure the old OS is properly wiped away.
108 Comments
Maeve@kbin.earth · 83 pts · 320d
Glad to know privacy isn't budget friendly.
Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip · 91 pts · 319d
Unfortunately a lot of "budget" items are being subsidized by your personal information, and the smaller market for privacy-forward goods and services makes economies of scale harder.
Unless governments start passing robust privacy laws, it will just continue to get more and more expensive to live privately with modern conveniences.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 11 pts · 319d
The sad part is how little things actually cost to produce.
Jtotheb@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 319d
Things cost a lot to produce. It’s cheapened by underpaying laborers and underestimating the cost and impact of resource extraction and power consumption, and the current path of massively scaling up factories, overproducing, and driving the repair economy out of business by making “just buy a new one!” so affordable really looks like The Big Thing That Ends The Current Epoch that people will really struggle to comprehend when they learn about it in history class
Maeve@kbin.earth · 5 pts · 319d
💯
BlueBaggy@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 319d
I don't know what exactly you're referring to but I assume you mean the bill of material cost that sometimes goes around in headlines like "new phone only costs $150 to produce and is sold for $500" or something like that.
That's a flawed way of looking at it because it ignores things like:
And of course profit which ideally is used to finance the development of the next device and ofc the greedy execs at the end who put the rest in their pockets (that's the only part which you can actually cut)
Maeve@kbin.earth · 3 pts · 319d
I'm not sure where you are, but I've worked in retail quite a lot of years. Where I am, now:
*R&D is paid for at some point *Shipping is probably more expensive now, but is normally not that expensive *Retail stores pay a flat rate per item, less in bulk
What is expensive:
*Venture capitalists *BoD, large share holders *Marketing (contained once brand recognition established) *C-suite *Real estate
olafurp@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 319d
R&D is a really big one though. It's a very high price for smaller volumes of phones but as soon as you get into the bigger quantities you can save on R&D (per model) and pocket the rest as profit.
To me it makes a lot of sense that privacy phones cost more, even if you could at most shave $100 off the price with selling data. It's economies of scale.
KindaKool@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 315d
KindaKool@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 315d
Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 319d
If you have economies of scale, and are competing on ground other than having the highest specs on paper, yes. If you're using the latest hardware and not moving Google volumes of devices though it's not as easy to keep prices down.
artyom@piefed.social · 6 pts · 319d
That's what I used to think before Google started pricing their devices on parity with Apple.
Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 319d
Now ask yourself, is that because Google isn't subsidizing device costs... Or perhaps..........
artyom@piefed.social · 3 pts · 319d
It's because they can, basically. That's the beginning and end of how companies price products and services.
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 31 pts · 320d
Yeah, it would be great if they would support a range of devices from whichever OEM this is, at different price points.
Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip · 31 pts · 319d
Biggest challenge GOS has is that most hardware vendors do not meet their fairly restrictive hardware security requirements, and those few that do don't typically allow bootloader unlocking. Pixel devices up until now have been unicorns in those regards.
30p87@feddit.org · 8 pts · 319d
But I don't get why they insist on those requirements. Yes, Random Phone + Graphene is less secure than Pixel + Graphene, but still far more secure and private than Random Phone + Stock ROM. Insisting on having all features just makes it far less accessible. There are many regions and classes that can't buy supported phones or a new phone at all. And I can't even properly confirm that everything I want to use works on graphene, because I'd need to fully commit towards buying a phone first. Which, even used, costs a lot.
1XEVW3Y07@reddthat.com · 15 pts · 319d
It's a limited development pool, and they focus on delivering the most secure mobile OS possible, within the constraints that their funding and resources allow.
There are other ROMS, such as CalyxOS that have expanded to a few other devices, and LineageOS which has even broader support.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 319d
According to the FAQ (warning: very wordy):
30p87@feddit.org · -3 pts · 319d
They'd probably bitch and whine that every other phone doesn't have the absolutetely vital security feature called thingamabobSecurityModule™ without which apparently every other security feature and even their ROM itself doesn't work anymore; as they always do.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 319d
Second hand pixels are not that expensive. Or the a series. Though it would be cool if it could run on a cheaper burner phone.
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 319d
RedSnt@feddit.dk · 60 pts · 320d
Oh no, won't somebody think of Google's bottom line?!
root@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 320d
That’s fantastic. Does this help with the issue of Google releasing AOSP security updates at a slower cadence? Maybe working directly with an OEM resolves this?
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 27 pts · 320d
I don't really know how this works, but if they have the cooperation of an OEM they should have the same access to AOSP security updates the OEM has, and access to hardware drivers from a company that's not trying to thwart them. I can see how this would be preferable to a basically antagonistic relationship with Google, who are making things difficult because they want all Pixel phones to run their stock OS. The thing I wonder is what motivates the OEM to continue a cooperative relationship with Graphene OS.
root@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 320d
That’s exactly my understanding/ thought process as well. I was wondering the same in terms of why an OEM would cooperate, and my first thought was the increase in hardware sales. I’m not sure how big the market is, but I know the security crowd will flock to them if they’re partnering with GOS when that market share would have previously been Googles. I’m not sure how big that market is or if the 'juice would be worth the squeeze'.
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 319d
I wonder whether there's some shared development agreement too. Perhaps the OEM stands to gain some software improvements for its own non-Graphene devices, or perhaps Graphene OS will become its mainstream offering. There has to be more to it than picking up the small percentage of customers who shop for privacy.
cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 316d
I think the bet is, the security crowd is about yo grow big-time
Whostosay@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 319d
They're extremely talented in the security/mobile/os arena, why not contribute to one of the Linux mobile projects and kill two birds?
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 319d
Because people want to use apps, which unfortunately don't exist on the Linux mobile projects. Banking apps are the biggest issue in fact. Obviously for a lot of other things, anyone can create alternatives.
And the whole issue of not being able to use most modern hardware with mainline Linux kernel because the drivers are closed source binary blobs. You have to use a device-specific kernels.
Whostosay@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 319d
Waydroid exists but agreed, shouldn't be a permanent fix, but it's a valid step
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 319d
That solves apps, but partially - I don't think WayDroid passes Google Play integrity?
Still leaves us the driver issue, for which I blame Qualcomm mostly.
chisel@piefed.social · 18 pts · 320d
Everyone out here guessing small OEMs for an official Graphene launch when it's obviously Apple.
crank0271@lemmy.world · 63 pts · 320d
Except that they mention Snapdragon, which Apple does not use.
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io · 78 pts · 320d
They also mention “major Android OEM” Which does not apply to Apple.
Evil_Incarnate@sopuli.xyz · 30 pts · 320d
tinfoil hat on It's obviously Apple funding this. They know most android users won't buy apples, they just want to weaken Google.
CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 320d
Could you imagine if apple created a Sub, where they made grapheneos iphones? Google would lose billions
ook@discuss.tchncs.de · 25 pts · 320d
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 1 pts · 319d
Many would just buy because it's made by apple yk
ook@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 319d
Nelots@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 319d
If somebody is buying a phone just because it's made by apple, they were never going to buy an android in the first place. Google would be entirely unaffected by this.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 319d
GrapheneOS is used by people in danger of being silenced, e.g. journalists
ook@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 319d
killingspark@feddit.org · 6 pts · 319d
I would unironically buy a gos iPhone. Like not the newest shiniest but older iphones become reasonable pricewise
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 319d
They make pretty good hardware and the fact that there aren't too many different configurations is a plus when it comes to software support. GOS iPhone would be awesome. Unfortunately never going to happen :(
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 319d
VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 319d
I can only think of Motorola doing rhis and it would ROCK !
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 319d
Yeah, I had two Motorola devices back to back because the price was right, then I switched to Pixel for GrapheneOS.
viking@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 319d
The Edge 70 Ultra comes in Q3/4 2026, that could be a hot contender.
artyom@piefed.social · 2 pts · 319d
Not sure if serious
Srootus@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 319d
I know it almost certainly isnt, but please god let it be Fairphone.
Srootus@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 181d
Update, its Motorola
SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 319d
Only took like twenty years
plz1@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 319d
I thought Google's plans to kill AOSP effectively put a nail in Graphene's coffin?
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 40 pts · 319d
Google has made it harder (it may kill AOSP in the long run but not yet) by delaying public release of source trees later than before. To counter that, they partnered with OEM, who in turn are partnered with Google, who are likely to get sources faster.
Danitos@reddthat.com · 13 pts · 319d
I still don't how they (and F-Droid) plan to bypass the whole de al with Google killing non-PlayStore aproved© apps, tho. GrapheneOS relies on that as well.
eatham@aussie.zone · 22 pts · 319d
That doesn't apply to grapheneos as they don't license gms
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 319d
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 9 pts · 319d
You can install apps freely with ADB so it will work that way or simply by removing google services, from what i understood(but i may be wrong) it's done by using google services so you need to uninstall them
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 8 pts · 319d
Graphene doesn't rely on any Google Services. They compile the OS themselves and don't include those services.
If you want it, you have to choose to install them.
Danitos@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 319d
My point was that Graphene uses non Play Store software, including an app store. But what I underestand from the comments is that the prohibition of software installation relies on Google Play Services, so Graphene is on the clear with that.
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 319d
It doesn't. There are several alternative installation sources available. On this Pixel tablet there is no Google Play originating software at all.
Danitos@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 319d
That was my point, GrapheneOS relies partially on installing non Google Play originating software.
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 318d
I don't understand your point. You can operate GOS completely without any Google sourced application or services. This how I run my tablet. My phone has Google Play sandboxed. It has no additional permissions.
Danitos@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 318d
I was confused about the app installation process. I though Android as a whole was prohibiting any installation of non Play Store apps (other than using adb), and since Graphene uses an external app store, they needed to come with a workaround.
eleitl@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 317d
If any such restrictions were in AOSP it would be easy to remove. But potentially AuroraStore can be affected if Google starts asking for login. I don't use it, so I don't care.
Zier@fedia.io · 13 pts · 320d
It's America, it's going to be Samsung.
waldo_was_here@piefed.social · 31 pts · 320d
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 320d
My $$ was on moto as well - it's already about the closest thing to stock and they probably need the boost.
Whereas Samsung is fucking worlds apart for actual android
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 319d
I've loved my Motorola's. They're seemingly the last manufacturer that realises that for a bunch of people (myself included) a good priced mid-range device is more than sufficient.
Localhorst86@feddit.org · 10 pts · 319d
just recently (2 months ago), I bought a Moto G84 5G, specifically because it had a snapdragon processor (and therefore good custom ROM support), is officially supported by LineageOS and it was cheap (160 EUR). I never needed a flagship phone, the cheap phones ~200 EUR always worked fine for me.
I was using Xiaomi/Redmi/Poco devices before that, but it seems that they have gone entirely Mediatek in that price segment, which is a shame.
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 319d
I've never used one but a buddy has one (of some sort - no idea of the model) and he can barely use signal because the battery management keeps killing the app.
He's still got the stock ROM on it, but hasn't been able to make the messaging usable which is sad. I'd grabbed a Samsung that my work had somehow slipped from knox enrollment so was able to root it but found its battery management was similarly abysmal and am starting to worry if maybe recent android is emulating those old performance / malware apps that aggressively kill off everything rather than letting the OS handle its own memory...
Now I know this is all reading like a fever dream but my handsets are on laughably old droid versions because I'm scarred by A/B partitions and oneplus so have let it all slip (that and Google keeps shitting on android!), so after all that waffle, I'm curious if you've got any similar anecdotes??
Cheers, Flambonkscious the rando
Localhorst86@feddit.org · 1 pts · 319d
I don't have any anecdotes, really. On all my cheap devices, I never really had any issues with apps getting killed by battery management. I know that sometimes, you'll have to specifically switch off battery management for these specific apps, which can usually be done with a single action that the app generally let's you access directly on first setup.
But I've always used stock android or at least AOSP based Roms - I've never stuck with OEM Roms longer than the (usually) first 7 days they keep you from unlocking the bootloader. Once I can unlock the bootloader, the OEM Rom is gone.
I do know that some OEMs have their own battery management implemented on top of androids, which is often more aggressive, and a bit more convoluted to access.
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 319d
Yeah, this was really my first time with a Samsung and I'll never go near it again...
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 319d
But Motorola doesn't have phones priced the same as Pixel (unless talking only about the Edge series).
waldo_was_here@piefed.social · 2 pts · 319d
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 319d
Razr is in that range.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 320d
I hope so, I love samsung's hardware and having a secure OS option to get out from under their godawful UI / OS stuff would be amazing.
bilb@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 319d
Yeah, I like folding phones. I use a Pixel 9 pro fold with Graphene currently, and I'd love for it to remain an option with Graphene in the future.
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 320d
Yeah, GraphineOS with OneUI would be a hard sell
artyom@piefed.social · 9 pts · 319d
Samsung is the largest Android manufacturer by a wide margin, and make a bunch of their money using spyware. Seems unlikely they would give GOS the time of day.
warm@kbin.earth · 5 pts · 319d
While it would be amazing if Samsung did open their phones up for custom ROMs again, I highly doubt they are doing. Its going to be a much smaller OEM.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 320d
It does make sense it would be Nothing. I feel like the CEO reads the Youtube comments asking for GOS
randomblock1@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 319d
Nothing isn't a "major OEM" but I think they'd be interested in it. Maybe they'll be next.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 319d
Nothing is a major OEM wdym.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 319d
While they're at it, can they talk their oem into adding a headphone jack? Literally the main reason I don't already do Pixel + Graphene. (And yes I know one of the supported Pixel phones does have one, but it also happens to be the exact model that I have personally seen do the black screen of death, so no thanks).
Grass@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 319d
my car set up that only gets used once or twice a month:
cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 316d
Better and cooler than android auto
Grass@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 316d
the audio quality is surprisingly excellent too. stock radios aren't bad, though the speakers have been hit and miss as I take all the junk to different cars. I think there are different types of cassette adapter too. My mom broke the one my parents had from before I existed by putting it in the wrong way and getting the cord stuck inside the slot and I replaced it, but the new one sounded way better in the same car.
BlackPenguins@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 319d
I have a pixel 8. I've wanted to degoogle myself for years. How risky is Graphene to install? Do I need to root it? Can I brick it? Are there things it does that Google doesn't? Apps that don't work for it?
Dreaming_Novaling@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 319d
If you use the web installer provided on GrapheneOS website, you can't fuck it up. Just make sure you use a chromium browser when you do it, for some reason it crashes on Firefox (but it didn't brick my phone, so don't worry)
No root needed, just follow the instructions on the website (read before doing it). You probably could brick it like anything else, but I didn't and I barely knew what I was doing (and like I said, it crashed on me when trying it via FF).
Neat things they do that Google doesn't (afaik):
Notable things that don't work:
cycadophyta@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 319d
Good on ya for sharing a helpful response
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 319d
Follow the instructions as they're presented and you'll be fine
Installing it will make rooting easier, but afik root is not required (though you will be accessing the device at the recovery/bootloader level, something with far more control than root)
Yes, pay attention, follow the instructions and you'll be fine though
Respect your privacy, allow you to sandbox apps which want to spy
Everything should work because of the sandbox function, the same cannot be said for most other custom ROMs unless the Google apps have been installed.
zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 319d
There are definitely some things that do not work with GrapheneOS, though most haven't affected me as I don't use them (like banking apps).
I still personally think it is worth it, but I can only speak for myself.
okamiueru@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 319d
Banking apps have worked without issues, in my experience.
The only things I've had issues with, is in-app purchases. Paid apps work, but the in app stuff is hit and miss.
zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 319d
Banking apps are highly variable, many work, many don't. I have also heard that there are some required 2FA apps used some some European banks that currently don't work. I don't use any of these, so it hasn't been an issue, but I just wanted to make sure the OP knew to be on the lookout.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 9 pts · 319d
Can they please make it work for Samsungs? I made the mistake of getting an S23 and I didn't realize it was incompatible with all non-standard OSes.
who@feddit.org · 18 pts · 319d
Samsung phones blow e-fuses when you unlock their bootloaders, so there's no going back. I think this would prevent a proper GrapheneOS installation.
Perhaps Samsung could start shipping phones with GrapheneOS natively installed, but since the phone's owner would not have control of the OS, that would arguably not be GrapheneOS as we know it today. Or maybe Samsung could change their chain of trust implementation to be more like Google's, allowing the bootloader to be re-locked.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 10 pts · 319d
Wow. That is some grade A bullshit!
Grass@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 319d
that reminds me, samsung has been advertising knox on their TVs now. samsung really likes permanently self damaging electronics
GreenShimada@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 318d
Samsung would never. Their customized OS is this nested egg of vendor lock-in, with your data at the center. They would rather harvest data from 99.5% of their customer base than see the 0.5% of us that actually like their equipment buy it and do anything other than sink into their ecosystem.
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 318d
I got a z flip 4 the other week for 90 quid off ebay. Was in perfect condition, and it felt nice in the hand. Liked the big screen, all that stuff. They I started running into the Samsung customised OS. It took less than a day to piss me off so much I gave it away.
Samsung make really nice phones, but then ruin them with their custom OS and bloat.
Sarothazrom@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 319d
If, God willing, it ever becomes available on a dual screen phone, I'll shit bricks.
augustus@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 319d
It already runs on the Pixel 9 Fold, and has for a while now.
Sarothazrom@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 319d
That's one with a single screen that folds though. Those break after like, a year. I was looking for more Nintendo DS style. 😅
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 319d
It has a big folding screen and a normal size non folding screen
mistermodal@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 319d
AAAAAAAAAAA DON'T JINX IT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
drspawndisaster@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 319d
We only use vector graphics from now on
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 319d
biotin7@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 319d
BTW, I want some advice. I have a pixel 4a running CalyxOS & want to switch to Graphene (The pixel 4a ROM is under legacy support)
Is it safe to flash GOS directly or should I flash the stock first & THEN GOS ??
Any more additional advice is welcomed & thanks in advance
RubberElectrons@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 319d
I'm staying with Calyx just because I don't want to run Google binaries. What's encouraging your switch?
biotin7@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 319d
When I installed Calyx then, GOS didn't have the Google-Play sandbox & now it does. Along with Vanadium.
DivestOS was a choice but now it's dead, also for some reason Pixel 4a doesn't have a TWRP image ?
RubberElectrons@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 319d
I don't trust the sandbox enough. MicroG on calyx does the play emulation just fine for me.
Anyway, good luck and I hope it goes well!
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 319d
If you're doing a dirty flash, as long as you have the same kernel version between them it should be fine, not recommended though, lots could go wrong.
You shouldn't need to go back to stock, but make sure the old OS is properly wiped away.
biotin7@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 318d
How does one wipe the old OS ?
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 318d
Recovery mode
r@piefed.social · 1 pts · 319d
very glad to hear this!